Martha Yee wrote:
First, these replace a set of principles that were elegant in their simplicity and conciseness and therefore easy for laymen to grasp, even though the designers of current online catalogs never bothered to read them so we never managed to implement them completely in existing catalogs.
Martha, I have to object to this statement which I will generously characterize as "unkind." Many of us who have designed library systems (or parts of them) have indeed read the literature of cataloging, have studied cataloging in library school, and even keep AACR2 beside our desks. We are not a bunch of ignorant dolts. As I have said to you many times before, computer systems may not be able to do everything you want in an affordable and efficient manner. But it's not for lack of trying on the part of your colleagues in the systems department of your institution. It would be ideal (nay, I should say necessary) for cataloging standards and systems standards to be developed together so that the requirements of both communities can be met. I can see many things in the current RDA drafts that simply WILL NOT DO what they are intended to do when taken off the written page and managed in a machine-readable record. Those of us in systems can only manipulate the data we are given, and we have very little say over its form. A better dialog between catalogers and the folks who will actually bring the catalog into being using computers would only benefit everyone, and the users most of all. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
